Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[Jud]

12 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Another very telling metric for "transparency" is how different the overall character of each recording presents itself.  If every record has the same general presentation in the room, then that system is the opposite of transparent (and frankly there are more than a few popular DACs that are guilty of this).

The one thing that blows most visitors' minds about my room/system (heck it even blows my own sometimes when I explore albums I have not listened to in a while) is how one recording can bloom like mad into the space and create one sort of atmosphere, while another will sound radically different, intimate, small and tactile.

Again, if most recordings have a similar character and room presence, that's the opposite of a transparent system.

 

Flame away, but tell us what conventional measurements are going to correlate to that very obvious metric.

 

I have a particular audition recording that specifically and intentionally does *not* have a big soundstage that I listen to in order to see if equipment gives it a fuller soundstage that is noticeable and wrong.

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

No, not with components of reasonable quality in a competent design.

 

I take it you are saying that all competently designed amps of reasonable quality sound identical. That could be your own experience -- only you know what you hear. My example was with what most people would consider a "competent" designer who uses reasonable quality, and so despite differences in measurement between the amps, they might each sound the same to you. Conversely you can't know what everyone else hears or doesn't hear.

[AJ Soundfield]

47 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Conversely you can't know what everyone else hears or doesn't hear.

Correct, but if its real they can demonstrate this ability, if its psychogenic, they can't.

Yet they claim they can.

[semente]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Correct, but if its real they can demonstrate this ability, if its psychogenic, they can't.

Yet they claim they can.

 

Time for a functional MRI.

[Ralf11]

1st - amps (that can drive your speakers well) are not the place to look for big changes in SQ

 

2nd - I suspect that active components will be more important than resistors in affecting SQ (not so sure re capacitors)

 

3rd - I am going to defer replacing (or testing new amps for possible replacement) of my Sunfire amp, and replace my DAC first (see #1 above)

 

It would certainly be an interesting test to see if listeners could hear different amps in a reliable test.  We would need a cheap source of subjects, and a high quality system + a listening space with an acoustically transparent curtain.  College students are often a good source of cheap subjects (and have good hearing) so we just need to find a college professor with a good sound system...

[mansr]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

I take it you are saying that all competently designed amps of reasonable quality sound identical.

That is not what I said. I said that if two amps sound differently, it is not due to imperfections in a resistor.

[Kimo]

16 hours ago, esldude said:

Finally remembered the one I had in mind.  The Wolcott tube amps.  Instrumentation amp design.  I think it has SNR of 100 db, and distortion like .0001% or some such.  Was pretty powerful too at about 220 wpc.  Used feed-forward as well as feedback. 

 

Reading translated article about the Qualiton 50i it looks to be fairly conventional push-pull tube amp design done to a high quality level.  I've had VTLs which were in the high 70 db range for 1 watt which put them near 90 db SNR for full rated power.  So sure its possible. 

They actually claim over 100 for their bigger model.  I likely will never hear that one.

 

For what it is worth, I have the best measuring phono preamp in the history of one publication coming in for an audition/purchase.  I keyed in on this one specifically due to its measurements, so we shall see how that works out for me.

[christopher3393]

5 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Correct, but if its real they can demonstrate this ability, if its psychogenic, they can't.

Yet they claim they can.

 

Yikes! I've read about psychogenic hearing loss but not this! Does diagnosis require a specialization... like audio engineering?... But what if the engineer himself has a psychogenic perception of audiophiles? I think this is called "phantom pain".  

[jabbr]

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

That is not what I said. I said that if two amps sound differently, it is not due to imperfections in a resistor.

Thanks for the clarification. Your post wasn't clear that your were limiting the discussion to resistors. I generally agree with that statement with the caveat that noise can be substantially higher with 0201 SMD resistors (as well as thick film) ... my original intention was that the "signature" of any electronic circuit depends not only on the schematic but the non-linearities in its components. All of this forms the frequency/voltage/phase spectrum that would be used to characterize this signature. 

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

my original intention was that the "signature" of any electronic circuit depends not only on the schematic but the non-linearities in its components.

And I still disagree with this. Provided good quality components are used, these imperfections will not result in audible differences. Output coupling capacitors might be an exception.

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

And I still disagree with this. Provided good quality components are used, these imperfections will not result in audible differences. Output coupling capacitors might be an exception.

transistors have different technologies with vastly different specifications. they are not at all interchangeable in a schematic. are you suggesting that a quality BJT vs quality JFET transistor necessarily "sound the same"? Surely the schematic matters?

57 minutes ago, mansr said:

That is not what I said. I said that if two amps sound differently, it is not due to imperfections in a resistor.

please explain then, are you suggesting that if two amps sound differently, then it is due to incompetence of design? or use of "poor quality" components?

[semente]

29 minutes ago, mansr said:

And I still disagree with this. Provided good quality components are used, these imperfections will not result in audible differences. Output coupling capacitors might be an exception.

 

19 minutes ago, jabbr said:

transistors have different technologies with vastly different specifications. they are not at all interchangeable in a schematic. are you suggesting that a quality BJT vs quality JFET transistor necessarily "sound the same"? Surely the schematic matters?

please explain then, are you suggesting that if two amps sound differently, then it is due to incompetence of design? or use of "poor quality" components?

 

I'm pretty much ignorant in this area but assuming that there is a reasonable selection of different circuit designs, it seems logical that some circuits are more "transparent" or accurate than others, some designs more complex than others.

What about differences in performance between transistor types?

How many transistors per channel are used?

Dual-mono vs. stereo?

Integrated vs. two-box?

The capacity and filtering effectiveness of the power supplies?
Grounding?

Which of these factors could possibly affect performance in an audible way?

[mansr]

55 minutes ago, jabbr said:

transistors have different technologies with vastly different specifications. they are not at all interchangeable in a schematic. are you suggesting that a quality BJT vs quality JFET transistor necessarily "sound the same"? Surely the schematic matters?

please explain then, are you suggesting that if two amps sound differently, then it is due to incompetence of design? or use of "poor quality" components?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course radically different designs can sound differently, and I never said otherwise. I did say, repeatedly, that if they do, it is because of the different designs, not because of self-noise or other minute imperfections in passive components. A design that amplifies such effects to audible levels is broken.

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course radically different designs can sound differently, and I never said otherwise. I did say, repeatedly, that if they do, it is because of the different designs, not because of self-noise or other minute imperfections in passive components. A design that amplifies such effects to audible levels is broken.

 

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  In this thread, the specific "sound" I was discussing was quoted from Nelson Pass own writing regarding the "sound" of the M2. He mentioned the transformer. Yes a passive component. Transformer nonlinearity is well known: http://jensen-transformers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Audio-Transformers-Chapter.pdf (section 1.3.1)

The nonlinearity of transformers varies from brand to brand and model to model. This is well known. The M2 has a transformer. The schematic is published. Feel free to build it with different brands of transformers to discover for yourself whether you can hear differences. (the parts are not expensive)

 

If you are talking about "something else" then you are quoting me out of context. If you consider either the design or designer incompetent or "broken" then  the phrase "never in doubt, often wrong" applies.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course radically different designs can sound differently, and I never said otherwise. I did say, repeatedly, that if they do, it is because of the different designs, not because of self-noise or other minute imperfections in passive components. A design that amplifies such effects to audible levels is broken.

 

Radically different designs should all sound the same, if each is working correctly. But flaws in the implementation of the system overall will be exaggerated in different ways by different designs - you're not "hearing the design", you're hearing a difference in the spotlighting of the audible issues of the system.

 

An analogy: you have a car with a lousy suspension setup; you try myriads of tyre types, and every one dramatically alters the feel of the car when testing handling ... Wow! This suspension really sorts out  the differences in how tyres are made! ... Ahh, no - your car has crap suspension, and you're being made aware of this fragility in the engineering, because it's incredibly sensitive to everything ... . Solution: fix the suspension, and then changing tyre types will only have an effect in the extremes of testing - the handling characteristics are now 'robust'.

[mansr]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  In this thread, the specific "sound" I was discussing was quoted from Nelson Pass own writing regarding the "sound" of the M2. He mentioned the transformer. Yes a passive component. Transformer nonlinearity is well known: http://jensen-transformers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Audio-Transformers-Chapter.pdf (section 1.3.1)

The nonlinearity of transformers varies from brand to brand and model to model. This is well known. The M2 has a transformer. The schematic is published. Feel free to build it with different brands of transformers to discover for yourself whether you can hear differences. (the parts are not expensive)

Output coupling transformers will almost certainly affect the sound. That's why designs aiming for transparency don't use them.

 

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

If you are talking about "something else" then you are quoting me out of context. If you consider either the design or designer incompetent or "broken" then  the phrase "never in doubt, often wrong" applies.

I was replying to Ralf11, so I wasn't quoting you at all. He explicitly mentioned resistors as a possible source of audible differences, and that's what I disagreed with. That's not to say that the choice of resistor is unimportant. For example, wire-wound resistors have significant inductance, making them unsuitable for high-frequency applications (audio can still be ok).

[mansr]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

Radically different designs should all sound the same, if each is working correctly.

They can sound the same if that is the goal. All too often, especially in the extreme high end, components are deliberately made with a "house" sound.

[esldude]

 

Doesn't change what you are saying.  However, the M2 uses an input autoformer type transformer for the 14 db voltage gain in that amp.  It feeds MOSFET followers.  Simple design.  Per the designer not transparent.  Not the designer's aim.

 

 

 

 

 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

However, the M2 uses an input autoformer type transformer for the 14 db voltage gain in that amp.  It feeds MOSFET followers.  Simple design.

There is oft stated desire against negative feedback. The designer states that the measured distortion is good enough that negative feedback is not necessary... I highlight this series because all designs are tradeoffs and here are examples with circuits where design tradeoffs can be listened to.

 

Now the J2 (from the online manual), here the very newly introduced Silicon Carbide power JFET is discussed -- note that he states this measures "astonishingly well":

Quote

With a device that behaves a little like a tube, it is natural to consider popular tube amplifier design topologies. Single-Ended Class A tube amplifiers are not very powerful, and their measurement numbers are not exceptional, but there is no arguing that they have strong musical appeal to much of the audiophile population. The J2 amplifier uses a classic JFET differential input stage followed by a single power JFET transistor. This power JFET is biased by another JFET in what is known in tube circles as a “mu follower”.

Here is a slightly simplified schematic of the J2 circuit. It could be a classic tube amp, except that the P channel input JFETs would have to be fabricated from anti-matter. The single-ended Class A output stage is “second harmonic” in character, and it uses about half the feedback of a comparable MOSFET circuit but with half the distortion and twice the bandwidth.

 

The J2 power amplifier is simple, clean, and measures astonishingly well. It achieves a sound which is warm and relaxed, combining precision and detail without sterility. With a pair of sensibly efficient loudspeakers, it will give you a toe-tapping experience that other solid state amplifiers do not. The design is extremely reliable and will never need adjustment.

 

[jabbr]

Quote

Quite a few people have asked me for a regular sort of amplifier, you know the kind you plug like any other, with some voltage gain and a real damping factor.
Amplifiers that have low distortion and noise, and will drive a 4 ohm load.

The last time people asked for that they got the Aleph J, which satisfied most of those requirements. Single-ended Class A, the Aleph J is an easy-going design which is happy driving 8 ohm loads with a warm, relaxed presentation.

By way of contrast, I present the F5 (taa-daa!), a push-pull Class A amplifier, utilizing JFETs and MOSFETs in a very simple two stage complementary circuit – a little bit like a complementary version of the Aleph J. But like all the other First Watt amps so far – this one is different.

...

In many ways, it’s an ordinary topology - the basic circuit is found in numerous preamp circuits and the odd power amplifier (Check out the Profet amp from Selectronics). But the F5 is the product of numerous decisions that set it apart.

It has very wide bandwidth, DC to > 1 MHz.

No capacitors anywhere in the circuit. (except in the power supply, of course!)

It has a high input impedance – 100 Kohms, and a high damping factor (~40)

The distortion is very low, between .001% and .005% at 1 watt.

It will drive low impedances.

It’s very quiet, about 60 microvolts or so.

Did I mention that it sounds terrific?

I preset this in contrast, for given design decisions (let's say transparency?)

[jabbr]

Why am I going on and on about this?

 

Precisely for the topic as stated. I give an example of FirstWatt as exemplary of a designer that "knows his stuff", is unquestionably an expert in his field and is respectful of the goals of his customers i.e. audiophiles

 

I present this to highlight the dichotomy between "blind" measurement and listening. I am hardly anti-measurement, but I think at the end of the day knowledge of the schematic is critical to understanding the measurements.

 

For "subjectivists" here are a series of different designs that can be listened to. For "objectivists", here are different schematics that can be analyzed. I have suggested that it is easier to just listen  That's what I do when going over schematics  

 

We should try to look at things from the "other guy's" perspective (I didn't bring up the schematics initially because that's not where we started but am happy to discuss...). Rather than directing what people should like, we can observe what people do like and try to explain that. There doesn't need to be value judgment.

[mmerrill99]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Rather than directing what people should like, we can observe what people do like and try to explain that. There doesn't need to be value judgment.

Precisely, auditory perception is the final judge, no matter how 'flawed' people ascribe to it's performance. It's still far, far better at resolving a dynamically changing pattern of pressure waves impinging on the ears from multiple source objects.

 

If it wasn't, hearing aids would be the preferred method for 'accurate' perception of sound

[AJ Soundfield]

16 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Precisely, auditory perception is the final judge

Another advocate for blind controlled listening, bravo! Who knew there were so many here (cognizant or not)?

 

Yeah, that whole staring at the thing for 2 months to judge...

[christopher3393]

“As will be illustrated during the course of this book, listening tests are arduous to perform and, as a result, are only undertaken when there is a clear need and benefit.”

 Perceptual Audio Evaluation - Theory, Method and Application, Søren Bech, Nick Zacharov, p.3

 

Here's a pdf that suggests just how arduous: http://assets.madebydelta.com/docs/senselab/publications/AES125_Tutorial_T4_Perceptual_Audio_Evaluation_Tutorial.pdf

 

What I wonder about is the time and expense involved to do this "right"? Under what conditions is this a realistic undertaking?

[mmerrill99]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Another advocate for blind controlled listening, bravo! Who knew there were so many here (cognizant or not)?

 

Yeah, that whole staring at the thing for 2 months to judge...

 

Yea, I look for reassurance every day that what I'm hearing live, in the everyday world, is 'accurate' so I conduct a blind controlled listening test with 100 other paid volunteers just to ensure this.

 

It makes for a very enjoyable life & best use of my time,  I find, don't you?

Nearly as fruitful as coming on audio forums